Quite the alphabet soup for a name. Is this a significant product? I know they say it's targeted toward 'professionals'. Are people going to migrate from Canikon? Will it prevent many from going to Canikon because other Oly products aren't good enough?

for some owners of 43 glass it is some solace - PDAF on sensor will make their lenses to focus somewhat better/faster, albeit all testers noted that is not a speed that dSLRs achieve (we are not talking about very lowly entry level dSLRs - but rather 7D/1D type of cameras)

The new design (grip) makes it the ugliest camera I've seen recently, too similar to many super-zoom p&s and low-level DSLRs.

the ugliest is E-M5, no contest... there is nothing wrong to move from ergonomical nightmare that E-M5 is towards a normal usability (that is w/ grip, w/ bigger buttons and many of them and bigger body)... hopefully E-M1 mkII will get there (and w/ articulated LCD)

I do not care for marketing fuzz-word like "Pro", so am curious only about how much it adds beyond the OM-D E-M5 I already have, particularly in relation to the $1400 official price.The headline promise is of course on-sensor PDAF for (a) better AF tracking [C-AF] with all lenses, and (b) better AF period with "legacy" Four Thirds SLR lenses. [Edit: and the new EVF, as already in the E-P5, VF-4, and reportedly also in the Fujifilm X100S.]

However, there are a few other promised improvements that I would love to see put to the test by a good hands-on reviewer like Michael:- An EVF that adjusts to ambient light levels, hopefully reducing the "dazzling" problem that some have reported when using an EVF in low-light.- Higher 6.5 fps with AF for each frame in C-AF mode (more important to me than its 10fps with AF only done before the first frame.)- "Freezeproofing": usability at down to 14ºF/-10C. The coming Antarctic trips would be a perfect test location!- A combination of two dials with buttons that modify their functions, to put lots of settings quickly at hand.- Focus peaking.- New smaller focus area options: to quote the PR: "Small Target AF for pinpoint shooting, or Super Spot AF for capturing even smaller subjects and specifying a small area focus location during macro shooting."- WiFi and apps allowing remote operation with, for example, the iPhones that are to be announced on the same day.

Other changes that might interest some people but are not so important to me:- A higher 1/8000s maximum shutter speed and a lower 100 ISO minimum sensitivity setting.- No OLPF ("anti-aliasing filter")- Microphone socket.- X-sync flash socket.- In-camera HDR.

P. S. If I had this camera, I would use it with some heavy Four Thirds lenses like the 50-200/2.8-3.5, so the deeper grip seems an excellent ergonomic change: do you guys complaining about the new grip buy cameras to look at or to use?

... do you guys complaining about the new grip buy cameras to look at or to use?

Both.

The question is utterly ridiculous. You are throwing out millennia of human quest for beauty and elegance. Everywhere you look, from women to art, from watches to cars, from buildings to parks, mankind has been striving to find or create beauty. If it comes married to function, even better. It is funny that the question comes from photographers, who are, as artists, striving themselves to create that beauty, harmony, balance in their work, and yet do not see the need to have that all around them.

The question is utterly ridiculous. ... Everywhere you look, from women to art ... mankind has been striving to find or create beauty. If it comes married to function, even better.

What I find ridiculous is:1) The multiple comments I have read criticizing the grip _solely_ on appearances, without making _any_ mention of the functional reason for it being far deeper than those of the previous Olympus MFT bodies, which were designed for use with small, light lenses.

2) The order you put things in there, as if beauty is the primary goal, and good functionality is secondary: "a bonus if you can get it too."

3) Forgetting that good aesthetic criteria usually have their origins in functional criteria, with what are originally visual cues of "suitability for purpose" becoming abstracted as "visual virtues". For example, a camera with a big heavy lens and no good place to hold it when carrying (like an E-M5 with 50-200/2.8-3.5) is ugly to me, perhaps because the sight makes mw cringe slightly as I imagine the discomfort of carrying it; conversely, the sight of a camera that I recognize as being a pleasure to hold and use attracts me.

... 1) The multiple comments I have read criticizing the grip _solely_ on appearances, without making _any_ mention of the functional reason for it being far deeper than those of the previous Olympus MFT bodies, which were designed for use with small, light lenses...

Bingo! That is the very reason I love EM-5 (and the original OM-1). What was the the main reason for the demise of the original 4/3 pro model (E-5)? Size (and price). It was almost the same size as a DSLR, and the lenses were, though smaller a bit, still often more expensive. What attracts to EM-5 are lenses like 45/1.8 and 75/1.8, not gigantic (for the body) zooms with a DOF equivalent of 5.6.

So, yes, you are right, one needs such an ugly, out-of-place (esthetically) grip IF you want to use it with such monsters, but then again, the combo defies the purpose of switching to m4/3.

Quote

... 2) The order you put things in there, as if beauty is the primary goal, and good functionality is secondary: "a bonus if you can get it too."...

Not my order, that is how the world has been working for millennia, beauty over function. Otherwise, you would not have the concept of "trophy wife" (yes, I did it again... comparing to women, that is )

I believe the grip will make the camera fall to hand very nicely, a place where the E-M5 does fall a little short, particularly with a heavier lens on it. The new camera and lens look like a very nice casual shooting combination, great for travel as long as you're not stalking the very very big print. The downside is the pricing -- not actually unreasonable when you consider the quality of the gear, but it will make it much harder to market to the folks who don't "get" the m4/3 format. Olympus is finally returning the niche it occupied with the OM series -- spanking good quality in a really compact form factor. Now if they would just tone down that "viewfinder" hump. I would definitely be looking to buy if I still wasn't trying to dig myself out from under my 800E/24-70 purchase.

Having said that, I'm curious to see how it stacks up against the Panasonic GX-7, which has a better form factor work working the street, IMO.

If I had this camera, I would use it with some heavy Four Thirds lenses like the 50-200/2.8-3.5, so the deeper grip seems an excellent ergonomic change...

Yup. I recently bought a 50-200mm with this in mind. For me it'll be a specialty lens, unlike the much more compact & lighter (& slower) Panasonic 45-200mm. But handy to have, just the same, when speed and higher IQ at larger apertures are important.

Has anyone noticed over at DP Review how the IQ is actually inferior to any competitor, including EM-5 and GX-7

I don't see that. What I do see is a bit of extra USM applied to E-M5 files, both JPEG and RAW. Dunno if this is in-camera or from DPR. Otherwise the E-M5, GX7 and E-M1 files look pretty much the same, allowing for real-world variables & tolerances.

Not my order, that is how the world has been working for millennia, beauty over function. Otherwise, you would not have the concept of "trophy wife" (yes, I did it again... comparing to women, that is )

Yes, but the 'trophy wife' is usually the second or third. So the 'function wife' was chosen first. And the men are often older, sometimes beyond their ability to 'function', although modern pharma has taken care of that too.

I haven't used the omd 1 yet, but I consider 4/3 professional. I know I've made money with them, especially the GH3.

I don't think were at the exact point where physical sensor dimension isn't a factor, but we're close and when I use the m43 cameras I never think of them as cropped anything. I just double the focal length, know what lens to use then shoot.

Whatever is in the viewfinder, lcd screen and computer is all that matters and I've shot my omd side by side th 1dx and in most instances there is not a great deal of difference, for most imagery to me I like the 43 better because their not glass smooth.

In regards to size, the omd1 really is very close to the same size as the omd 5, much smaller than a 5d3, tiny compared to a 1dx, but in a lot of ways more useable, especially with the 5 axis image stablization, price, lens size and the ability to carry a huge kit in a shoulder messenger bag.

My only three gripes with the omd1 is the lack of a better video file to exceed or even match the gh3, headphone sound sampling out and an easier menu system for setting button functions.

My one real upside of the omd 1 is the legacy 43 lenses. If you've ever used those f2 lenses, like the 150 you'll know what I mean.

Oh yea, also the oly always seems oversharpened out of camera, but finding the right preset in c-1, lightroom or the best Irdient Developer will fix that easily and give you a look that makes you wonder why a 1dx costs 6 grand.

Now I guess where the rubber meets the road, will I buy it? Maybe, probably, but next will be the blackmagic 4/3 video camera (if they solve the battery issue and can format cards in camera) because the footage I've seen from that camera is very pretty and ready to edit right out of camera.

Personally though, I've never seen a more capable camera than the gh3's for the money, but olympus has a history and some style to it that the panasonic's lack. Actually it's in the top sale of Amazon cameras today, the first time every for a olympus camera and one of the highest priced in the top 100.

Maybe more people have been anticipating it than the naysayers thought.

My suggestions to anyone wanting to try 43 is to rent one and put it in a paying gig. I think lens rentals or borrow lens will rent them. The oly 43 primes and the leica 43 25mm are to be seen to understand how sharp and good they are.

Has anyone noticed over at DP Review how the IQ is actually inferior to any competitor, including EM-5 and GX-7

Yep, I rarely check samples these days, but I did for the new Olympus.

And it did indeed strike me that even at base ISO there was a certain plastic look and lack of micro details compared to its competitors, the gap being particularly large compared to the D7100 at base ISO.

That is the very reason I love EM-5 ... What attracts to EM-5 are lenses like 45/1.8 and 75/1.8, not gigantic (for the body) zooms with a DOF equivalent of 5.6.

So, yes, you are right, one needs such a... grip IF you want to use it with such monsters, but then again, the combo defies the purpose of switching to m4/3.

Yes, most m4/3 users, most of the time will be using relatively small light lenses, and so that majority is best served by one of the many smaller bodies like the E-M5. But for some of us, the greatest advantage of a smaller format is in the telephoto regime, where the lenses are substantially smaller and lighter than would be needed in larger formats, but are still somewhat weighty. My favorite 4/3 lens is the 50-200, doing what would need an even longer lens in APS-C or 35mm. I also love the m4/3 75-300, "the hand-holdable 150-600 zoom I never had for my film cameras", and that is already weighty enough that carrying it by the E-M5 grip is uncomfortable.

So a minority of m4/3 users will benefit from this body and its design ... and it is clearly featured and priced to appeal to that minority.

I think we agree that for other m4/3 users, a more dainty PDAF model is also to be hoped for!

Actually, EM-5 has a very elegant grip itself (though those who do not remember OM-1 motor drive may not appreciate what makes this grip so retro-elegant). It is not part of the body, though, but comes with a battery holder as well, making it quite holdable for larger lenses and people with bigger palms.

What bothers me with the EM-1 integrated grip is not that there is one, but that it looks soooo out of place on the EM-5 body, like a Frankenstein contraption. Take for example, GH3: large grip as well, but fully integrated with the rest of the body in terms of lines and overall feel.

EM-1 grip looks like a victory of the marketing department over design guys. It looks like the design department refused to ruin the original design and resigned en masse in protest. Marketing guys said: "Fine, go, we can do it without you," googled the cheapest plastic gizmos factory in China, ordered the grip and glued it to the body. End of story